you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 day ago (12 children)

my fear is that this is only because AI videos look like uninspired trash.

So only the people who like it are people with zero taste, resulting in a shitty movie.

My fear is that it's temporary, that in a few years AI video would be indistinguishable from artist made one, and by then, I don't know what will happen with movies

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    I mean, if a computer creates an artistic work that is truly indistinguishable from a human work, then that would imply the AI possesses sentience and is sharing it's individual perspective via said work. And honestly I consider that something to be celebrated, not feared.

    LLMs might be able to fool us for a minute or two into believing it is alive, but unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding the technology they can't actually ever share a perspective and make art because they don't possess a perspective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 23 hours ago* (5 children)

    Or it just copied human works and made the sources it copied from obscure enough to not be sued, which is the best it can do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (4 children)

    But I'm not talking about a copy machines. I'm saying that if a hypothetical synthetic being was able to retell an existing human story using its own voice then that qualifies as an original artistic work. Just as we don't consider Christopher Nolan's "The Odyssey" to be a "copy" even though the story has been told before. Without an artist you definitionally don't have art.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 22 hours ago* (3 children)

    Copy machine output doesn't count as original works.

    Movies that retell stories openly are adaptations that give credit to the original source. AI slop does not give attriution to what it is copying.

    Movies that are inspired by prior works, which is basically everything, but intentionally do a new take are art because they have intent and meaning even if done poorly. AI slop is just regurgitating stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, I agree that a copy machine is not sentient. You can’t just decide that an inanimate object is "art" and then work backwards to say that the non-sentient tools that were used to create the work are the real artist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 22 hours ago

    It took some effort, but this seems to be a trailer of the movie.

    It runs into a lot of issues tied to AI (bad voices, glossly/weightlessness to everything, art style all over the place). Some things will be fixed over time, but I don't think the current AI trend can replace someone with a good eye for art direction, it certainly can't write scripts on its own, and the voices tied to the video frames will probably continue to prove challenging.

    That being said, this definitely wasn't created with some of the better models out there, and articles I was reading said something like 2/3rds of Chinese micro-dramas have heavy AI usage. So, maybe not the end of the world, but not great either.

  • source
  • parent